EXCULPATORY JURISPRUDENCE

As for gross misconduct, the adjective is gross or serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not
trifling; while the noun is "misconduct," defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. The word
"misconduct" implies a wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. For gross misconduct to
exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by
an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.

And as for dishonesty, it is committed by intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or
practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration,
appointment or promotion. Dishonesty is understood to imply a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity.

Clear from the foregoing legal definitions of gross misconduct and dishonesty is that intention is an
important element in both. Petitioners candid admission of his shortcomings in properly and completely
filling out his SALN, his endeavor to clarify the entries therein and provide all other necessary
information, and his submission of supporting documents as to the acquisition of the real properties in
his and his wifes names, negate any intention on his part to conceal his properties. Furthermore, in view
of this Courts findings that these properties were lawfully acquired, there is simply no justification for
petitioner to hide them. Missing the essential element of intent to commit a wrong, this Court cannot
declare petitioner guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty.

Neither can petitioners failure to answer the question, Do you have any business interest and other
financial connections including those of your spouse and unmarried children living in your house hold?
be tantamount to gross misconduct or dishonesty. On the front page of petitioners 2002 SALN, it is
already clearly stated that his wife is a businesswoman, and it can be logically deduced that she had
business interests. Such a statement of his wifes occupation would be inconsistent with the intention to
conceal his and his wifes business interests. That petitioner and/or his wife had business interests is thus
readily apparent on the face of the SALN; it is just that the missing particulars may be subject of an
inquiry or investigation.

An act done in good faith, which constitutes only an error of judgment and for no ulterior motives
and/or purposes, does not qualify as gross misconduct, and is merely simple negligence.[64] Thus, at
most, petitioner is guilty of negligence for having failed to ascertain that his SALN was accomplished
properly, accurately, and in more detail.
Negligence is the omission of the diligence which is required by the nature of the obligation and
corresponds with the circumstances of the persons, of the time and of the place. In the case of public
officials, there is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform the obligation, and
there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.

Pleyto vs. PNP-CIDG, G.R. No. 169982, November 23, 2007